Partial Payments & Resetting SOL in Texas

[laz98]

I know this is something that a lot of people, especially me, have been wondering about.  I found this information on another forum.  Does anyone know anything more about this?  (Like if it's accurate or outdated?)  The post was dated October 2007.  I tried to look up some of the cases, but most of the pages i came across were databases you have to subscribe to in order to see their information. 

Texas Case Law regarding partial payments

Payments made by one obligor on note after it was overdue but before limitation period had run did not operate to toll statute or start running of a new period of limitation.

Weber v. Prinz (Civ. App. 1964) 379 S.W.2d 419

---

Mere fact that part payments had been made on alleged debt was not sufficient to toll statute of limitations.

Mandola v. Oggero (Civ. App. 1974) 508 S.W.2d 861

---

Mere payment of debt neither interrupts running of statute of limitations on debt nor acknowledges justness of debt with implicit promise to pay it.

Siegel v. McGavock Drilling Co. (Civ. App. 1975) 530 S.W.2d 894, ref. n.r.e..

---

A check issued in part payment of a promissory note neither interrupts, running of limitation on the debt nor acknowledges justness of the debt with an implicit promise to pay it.

Gabriel v. Alhabbal (Civ.App. 1981) 618 S.W.2d 894, ref. n.r.e..

[guiness56]

Making a payment does not restart the SOL in Texas.  As far as I know the only thing that will restart it would be to give a written letter promising to pay.

[laz98]

Do you know where I can find that clearly written?

I'm sorry for nagging about this one thing, but I made a payment to Midland on a CO account from Verizon, & I need to know if I can still get sued for it or not.  I really appreciate your expertise.  Thanks! 

[guiness56]

I will look for it and give you the link. Texas is probably the most consumer friendly state there is.  And I would not worry too much about Midland.

How old is this account?

Message Edited by guiness56 on 10-20-2008 06:19 AM

[guiness56]

This is Statute:  Subchapter D, Miscellaneous Provisions

§ 16.065.  ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CLAIM.  An acknowledgment of
the justness of a claim that appears to be barred by limitations is
not admissible in evidence to defeat the law of limitations if made
after the time that the claim is due unless the acknowledgment is in
writing and is signed by the party to be charged.

[laz98]

does a personal check signed by me count?  i would think it would.  that seems to be up for debate around here, though.

[Anonymous]

---

guiness56 wrote:

This is Statute:  Subchapter D, Miscellaneous Provisions

§ 16.065.  ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CLAIM.  An acknowledgment of
the justness of a claim that appears to be barred by limitations is
not admissible in evidence to defeat the law of limitations if made
after the time that the claim is due unless the acknowledgment is in
writing and is signed by the party to be charged.

---

I have to wonder if this means after the statutes of limitations has already expired.

Meaning, the day after SOL expires, a debtor could admit to owing the debt and it wouldn't reset SOL. But, if the debtor signs the acknowledgement, it could reset SOL even if SOL had completely expired.

[laz98]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I have to wonder if this means after the statutes of limitations has already expired.

Meaning, the day after SOL expires, a debtor could admit to owing the debt and it wouldn't reset SOL. But, if the debtor signs the acknowledgement, it could reset SOL even if SOL had completely expired.

---

that's how i understood it.  that's actually the situation i'm in.  i will wait for guiness to throw his 2 cents in!  

[RobertEG]

Section 16.065 of the TX Civil Practices and Remedies Code governs treatment of a claim made before the court by the suing party that the SOL, even though expired, will not be a defense by the party being sued.  It says no way unless the party being sued waives his right in writing.

More specifically, the "claim" being referred to in section 16.065 is a claim by a creditor that even though suit was not filed within the SOL, the SOL should not be enforced.  The statute clearly says that the court will not entertain any such claim unless agreed to in writing, and signed by the party being sued.  This section helps  you, it does not hurt!

The Texas SOL law is set forth in section 16.004a)(3), and is four years from the date of first default on the debt, with no excpetions for resetting due to any later partial payments, or even any offers to pay.l

Message Edited by RobertEG on 10-21-2008 12:24 AM

[laz98]

So i DON'T have to worry about Midland coming after me, even though I made a payment in January?  That would be wonderful!  (Maybe that's why they suddenly went away...)

---

@RobertEG wrote:

That is not what the referenced section 16.065 of the TX Civil Practices and Remedies Code is referring to.

The "claim" being referred to in section 16.065 is a claim by a creditor that even though suit was not filed within the SOL, the SOL should not be enforced.  The statute clearly says that the court will not entertain any such claim unless agreed to in writing, and signed by the party being sued.  This section helps  you, it does not hurt!

The Texas SOL law is set forth in section 16.004a)(3), and is four years from the date of first default on the debt, with no excpetions for resetting due to any later partial payments, or even any offers to pay.l

---